- A Trump FCC might focus on undoing recent FCC initiatives
- A Harris FCC would likely continue to forge ahead with progressive policies
- The Supreme Court's recent decision gutting the Chevron doctrine could get in the way of both
As with every U.S. election in recent memory, 2024’s is turning out to be a bit of a rollercoaster ride. But what does it all mean for the telecom regulatory landscape? Will the winner of the election really have that big an impact on the trajectory of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)? Or will recent court rulings end up mattering more?
We took a dive into how a Trump FCC might look and act different from a Harris FCC, and what issues each might run into.
A Trump FCC
Interestingly, the Republican path forward for the FCC was sketched out by sitting Commissioner Brendan Carr in Chapter 28 of the 900-page Project 2025 plan, which proposes the actions the next Republican president should take within their first 180 days in office.
New Street Research Analyst Blair Levin previously noted in November that Carr is a likely Trump pick for FCC Chair.
In the document, Carr advocates for policies that will reign in big tech, boost national security and increase accountability at the agency, among other things. On the big tech front, he proposes the FCC should eliminate certain protections Section 230 provides for internet companies, impose transparency requirements and force them to contribute to the Universal Service Fund.
In terms of security, Carr called for expanding the entity list which names companies which pose a security risk to the country, providing full funding for the existing Rip and Replace Program designed to remove unsecure gear from U.S. networks and preventing U.S. cloud companies from providing their services to Chinese companies working on AI.
Carr also calls for the FCC to free up more spectrum for wireless services; continue efforts to modernize wireless and wireline infrastructure rules; eliminate policies which allow broadband funding to be used for overbuilding; and improve coordination on spectrum policy and infrastructure spending.
A source from a DC consulting firm who asked not to be named told Fierce that it’s “relatively clear” what would happen under a Trump FCC, namely that whoever is named Chair will likely stop certain orders from moving forward and roll back others. Think orders like the AI ad disclosure rules current Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel is currently pursuing and the recent rulemaking reinstating Net Neutrality.
The source said this will be done in the context of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine. The Chevron doctrine positioned regulatory agencies as subject matter experts, allowing them to reasonably interpret vague laws passed by Congress in order to implement them without fear of legal attack. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling threw that standard out the window.
However, Levin argued that while a Republican-led FCC would be “rhetorically different” than a Democrat-led agency, “most of what Carr proposes is in the hands of other institutions of government.”
For instance, on the Big Tech front, Levin stated, “Tech would theoretically be the loser and ISPs theoretically the winner, particularly in terms of USF funding. But we don’t think the theory will play out in practice. Most of these proposals require either Congress acting (we’re skeptical) or the courts granting powers to the FCC that we don’t see the law providing.”
And on infrastructure, Levin noted that there is a difference between Carr’s proposal and Democrats’ inclination to let state and local governments lead in this area. But he added by the time a Republican Chair is able to get through a rulemaking and have the courts weigh in, “the practical impact would be limited, as the current big cycle of private and public funded deployments would be nearing the end.
“While we believe the next Presidential election may be one of the most consequential in history, its impact in terms of FCC policy is unlikely to be great," Levin said.
A Harris FCC
The consulting firm source said that conversely, if Harris were to win, a Democratic FCC would likely focus on following through with items already in progress tackling issues like digital discrimination and the aforementioned AI ad disclosures.
Levin pointed out Harris has been vocal about broadband being a necessity rather than a luxury and has also been a proponent of the now-lapsed Affordable Connectivity Program. He added she has also backed the reinstatement of net neutrality rules and was tapped by President Joe Biden to lead the charge on establishing regulations for federal use of artificial intelligence.
And looking back to Harris' tenure as California Attorney General, during which she opposed the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, Levin said she’s likely of the position that the “mobile market has had too much consolidation and regulation should reflect that reality.” In that capacity, she also promoted privacy regulations for big tech.
While it’s true that Harris has connections to Silicon Valley and Big Tech’s views will likely be well represented, Levin argued, “That does not mean that she will instinctively favor Silicon Valley interests.”
But again, the DC consulting source said that the FCC will be stuck grappling with the Chevron decision.
The source said that democrats are going to be pressuring the FCC to do big things for consumers and tackle issues like robocalls, affordability, oversight, emergency response preparedness, 911 upgrades and cybersecurity. But with the overruling of Chevron one would expect "a lot of litigation” challenging every step the FCC tries to take," they added.
FCC relevance called into question
The consulting firm source said that no matter who wins, there’s one overarching question that will hover over the FCC: whether it’s still relevant.
“There’s this ongoing push and pull with respect to telecom and technology policy about whether the Commerce Department [and by extension the NTIA] or the FCC is going to be more preeminent. And I don’t know that for either Harris or Trump, I don’t know that it’s clear about how either administration will treat that question,” the source concluded.